Why solar bonds are a bright idea | Letter
In a letter to the Guardian, Alexis Abramson, dean of the Columbia Climate School, welcomes a UK proposal to use "solar bonds" to make rooftop solar panels more affordable, calling it a smart fix for the rising cost of capital. Under the scheme, investors would receive a modest guaranteed return while homeowners gain access to cheaper finance, with the loan attached to the property rather than the individual, meaning it need not be repaid if someone moves house. Abramson argues the model deserves consideration in the US too, where existing options such as leases and green bank loans leave gaps that solar bonds could fill.
Abramson notes that leases let US homeowners install panels with no upfront cost but mean they never own the system, while green bank loans, offered in states such as Connecticut and New York, remain tied to the borrower rather than the property. The bond mechanism itself resembles existing state and municipal infrastructure bonds, simply made retail-facing and earmarked for solar. The main obstacle is repayment: the UK can link payments to a standing charge on national energy bills, whereas the US's fragmented utility landscape makes a state-by-state approach more realistic than a federal one. Abramson stresses the need is urgent, since the 30% federal residential solar tax credit and the Solar for All programme both expired at the end of 2025.
- Letter backs UK "solar bonds" plan to cut rooftop solar financing costs
- Bonds tie loans to property, not homeowner, offering cheaper capital
- Writer urges US states adopt similar model after federal solar incentives lapsed
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Solar bonds could make rooftop panels affordable to more households by lowering borrowing costs and tying repayment to the property, so owners need not carry the loan when they move. They could also offer investors a modest return and fill gaps left by leases, which do not confer ownership, and borrower-linked loans; the loss of federal support makes new financing routes more pressing.
The case against
A property-linked bond scheme could add complexity and repayment obligations that homeowners may not fully understand, while a guaranteed investor return could leave households or public bodies bearing risks if payments fall short. In the US, fragmented utilities and differing state systems make collection and administration harder, potentially limiting the scheme’s reach and raising questions about whether it is simpler or fairer than existing finance options.